There are three lanes going in the same direction.
Section 159.1(2) addresses drivers in the same lane as the emergency vehicle, and it addresses drivers in the lane adjacent to the emergency vehicle.
Those in the same lane are required to move to another lane, (the part I left in because bondra12 was in the same lane as the emergency vehicle) and drivers in the lane adjacent to the emergency vehicle must move to the left most lane. I took that part out because it doesn't apply to bondra12 because they stated they were in the same lane as the emergency vehicle.
It is also my interpretation of this law as being an absolute liability offence.
It is clearly not a mens rea offence.
Section 159.1(4) articulates the words ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“is guilty,ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â which means it is not a strict liability offence providing a due diligence defence.
Therefore, S. 159.1 is unconstitutional as s. 159.1(4)(b) includes a term of imprisonment for a second and each subsequent offence. A term of imprisonment attached to an absolute liability offence is unconstitutional.
http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1985/1 ... 2-486.html
159(4) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable,
(a) for a first offence, to a fine of not less than $400 and not more than $2,000; and
(b) for each subsequent offence, to a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $4,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both.
The entire provision is just a money grab anyway. If there are only two lanes in the same direction and a cop is in one lane drivers are passing them in the adjacent lane. This is what bondra12, so the cop was not in anymore danger than he would have been had there only been two lanes going in the same direction.
I also disagree about it being a money grab. It's about minimising risk to the officer - if room is available and traffic allows an extra lane free, why not give that to the officer? It's like tint laws - they can't see into a car at night without the driver turning on the interior lights anyways, so why disallow dark tint during the day?
The cop says it was safe to do. Why was the cop watching what Bondra12 was doing and watching the traffic in the third lane, two lanes over from him, if he was busy with another vehicle?
Because he was just looking to hand out tickets for this offence. I'm sure if his daily activity is looked at he gave out other tickets on this day for the same offence.
When the case reaches court, Bondra12 will say it wasn't safe to do, the cop will it was safe for them to move over. Why should the cop be believed over Bondra12?
Bondra12 wasn't given a speeding ticket, so s/he in fact slowed down.
Right. Taking Bondra's side of the story (and I have been in that circumstance before), I would slow down to ~20% below the limit and turn on my four-way flashers to let the officer know that I am aware of his vehicle. Never been bothered yet.Lawman wrote:The law doesn't require drivers do it at any cost, it only requires it to be done if it can be done safety.
Those lanes present a risk to both the officer and the driver he pulled over. I think most officers will keep an eye on traffic when parked in a vulnerable position.Lawman wrote:Why was the cop watching what Bondra12 was doing and watching the traffic in the third lane, two lanes over from him, if he was busy with another vehicle?